pay (WTP) for maintaining limestone pavements and orchid-rich grasslands in the Burren (Burren Life Group 2010). The results were used to support the structuring of a payment scheme for Burren farmers using funds from agro-environmental policies. The “Burren Farming for Conservation Programme” (BFCP) (2010–2015) involved 160 farmers on 15,000 ha to support and incentivize farmers in maintaining and enhancing the habitats of the Burren (DAFF 2010).

The Burren Programme (DAFM 2016), started in 2016 with 200 farmers, will continue to implement solutions to help manage and protect the Burren cultural landscape. For its funding, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) provides 1 M€ annually to farmers and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) provides additional funding for administration. Further funding is provided by the Irish Farmers Association (Burren IFA) and Teagasc (Agriculture and Food Development Authority), both of whom were centrally involved in the original BurrenLIFE project, and from a range of other stakeholders including The Heritage Council.

The Burren experience has pioneered a novel “hybrid” approach to farming and conservation which sees farmers paid for both work undertaken (Payment for Actions) and for the delivery of agreed environmental objectives (Payment for Results).

The Payment for Actions is related to the co-design of an annual farm plan, which contains a list of actions with the aim of improving the site’s management and conservation condition. Each work is budgeted, co-founded and carried out within the year by the farmer, with a final payment for complete and satisfactory standard of work.

The Payment for Results system is based on the yearly evaluation of the actions carried out by farmers. The result-based payment system allows farmers greater freedom to decide how to manage their land. The results on ecosystems conservation are evaluated annually with a ‘habitat health’ checklist, scored between 1 and 10 for each field. A score greater than 3 receives payment, but higher scores receive higher payments. This gives farmers the incentive to manage their fields in ways that will improve their scores and their payment as well and, at the same time, guarantees the taxpayer better value for money.

17.4Conclusions and Discussion

Complex economic and societal factors are causing the abandonment of terraced landscapes, generating further environmental damages and a dramatic decrease of well-being in mountain marginal areas.

Abandoned terraced landscapes represent an unacceptable waste of territorial, environmental, social, economic resources, which generates negative impacts on the decay of historic towns and villages, producing a vicious circle over time. Systemic solutions should be explored, able to generate jobs and income starting from “land” as vital/living resource, which provides many ecosystem services.

Mountain, youths and development are interdependent: an inclusive development model is needed, able to take care of mountain and hill areas. The circular economy has been here proposed as a model that tends to avoid all wastes of resources, able to trigger processes of territorial regeneration. A new entrepreneurship, inclusive and responsible, able to go beyond the maximization of the economic income taking into account the production of multiple values, is certainly necessary.

In other words, the fundamental thesis of this paper is that the negative impacts of land abandonment in terraced landscapes can be avoided through the implementation of circular processes, thus integrating beauty, economy and fairness through a systemic landscape approach.

To implement the circular economy model in terraced landscapes, social, technological, financial and economic innovation is needed. Evaluation tools must be employed to produce evidence of the costs and flows of benefits of landscape regeneration for multiple stakeholders, also in the surrounding urban areas.

The ecosystem services assessment can be applied to evaluate costs and benefits of maintaining traditional agricultural systems (TEEB 2015). Mapping and assessment of ES in terraced landscapes provide evidence of the complex spatial, physical and intangible interrelations between economic, sociocultural and environmental landscape functions, linking them to human well-being. Policy choices should be informed by the knowledge of these relationships, to compensate local farmers for the multidimensional societal benefits they provide. The recognition of the role of farmers for the conservation of cultural agrarian landscapes (because they provide ecosystem services fundamental for human well-being) is the starting point to structure economic instruments that secure an income and a new social role to rural households, thus contributing to halt migration flows from rural to urban areas.

The circular economy model can be implemented in terraced landscapes reducing the overall costs of maintenance and enhancing the social, environmental, cultural and economic productivity. Spatial proximity becomes relational proximity, creating synergies between many actors, that reduces costs.

Spatial relationships can be extended to the urban-rural ensemble, considering ES at their provision location and in the larger urban-rural areas of benefit (Plieninger et al. 2013; Nahuelhual et al. 2014). Urban and rural areas are mutually interdependent: rural villages and cities/metropolitan areas are two ends of a human settlements continuum (United Nations 2015). Ecosystem functions in the rural landscape support human well-being in urban areas by providing services such as local food, freshwater, air purification, cultural identity and other supporting services needed for human life (TEEB 2015). Thus, economic and financing mechanisms can be structured at the city-region level, implementing healthy “City Region Food Systems” as proposed by FAO (2015).

Large investments are required to recover disused landscapes, with lower and longer-term economic returns compared to areas of intensive agriculture. This reduces the attractiveness of the investment in the traditional economy. The circular economy, adopting the approach of ecological economics, changes the economic

perspective taking into account the multidimensional benefits of landscape reuse as productive factors comparable to the economic return on investment, creating new market demands (willingness to pay) and thus new jobs for agro-environmental businesses.

Cooperative entrepreneurship in abandoned terraced landscapes, also in a systemic perspective with more productive plane agricultural lands, is an example of social responsibility, because it generated jobs, income and environmental preservation. Certainly, this is not the only solution to regenerate terraced landscapes. However, it should not be overlooked, considering that the civil/solidarity economy is structurally a form of circular economy, where close loops of giving-receiving-giving back are enhanced, exploiting spatial and relational proximity. Civil, solidarity, sharing economy models are all forms of circular economy that consider intrinsic values (and not only instrumental ones), the long term (future generations) and not only the short term of return on investment, intangible values and not only the economic-quantitative ones.

Case studies show that it is possible to foster social, business, financing and institutional innovation through public-private-social cooperation. In some cases, the role of third sector as intermediary has enhanced sharing/solidarity local economies introducing short chains and loops between production and consumption in internal areas and in urban-rural areas, able to valorize small-scale activities, family/community led. The “well-living” (Acosta 2010; Becchetti et al. 2017) can enhance the attractiveness of terraced landscapes, where beauty, health and proximity (spatial and relational) are key factors of quality of life.

This “soft” perspective can produce “hard” consequences on the economic dimension, influencing consumers’ choices, policy choices and localization choices of businesses and residents. The economic instruments analysed can be implemented to foster innovation towards the transition to a circular model of development in terraced landscapes and attract new investments.

Financing cultural agrarian landscapes can be particularly challenging. According to FAO (2015), “Considering the variety of direct and indirect costs and benefits provided by restoration of mosaic landscapes, a mix of investors and financing instruments will be required for effective financing landscape restoration”. Social impact investment funds and community-led investment models such as crowdfunding could be promoted for financing terraced landscapes regeneration, linking the social and environmental impacts with economic performances. Dewees et al. (2011) identify four main categories of investors depending on their goals:

(1)traditional investors that seek a financial return;

(2)social investors have other goals besides earning a return on their investment and are willing to accept higher risks;

(3)conservation investors use their capital to protect or restore a specific landscape, habitat or species;

(4)impact investors, who mix the approaches of the previous categories.

The attractiveness of investments is here linked to the possibility of reducing costs and enhances the multifunctionality and productivity of terraces. The evaluation of the complex social value of terraced landscape, using the methodologies of ES assessment, is necessary to provide evidence to many actors of the expected mutual flows of benefits of investments in regeneration.

Innovative financing mechanisms have been widely experimented in urban regeneration practice (Dalberg Global Development Advisors 2014), and thus, they could be transferred and adapted to terraced landscape regeneration.

As shown in the case studies, an important prerequisite for the success of economic instruments is the participation of the public actor as promoter, validator and/ or co-financing subject, that ensures feasibility and a strong process based on transparency, trust, sharing and collaboration.

To improve the potential of funding for cultural resources, communication and awareness raising processes are needed, because from this depends the availability of financing. A second action is linked to the accessibility of terraces, which can encourage or discourage the availability of financing, to variable degrees when it comes to private, public or civic/social bodies. The third perspective refers to the reduction of functional re-adaptation costs through technology and/or public subsidy.

These three different actions have different significance when it comes to private financing (e.g. Trust, Foundations, Patrons), public bodies (national, regional, local: incentives, grants, tax reduction or tax exemption) or social impact funds/third sector bodies (e.g. non-profit organizations, businesses cooperatives, hybrid businesses and impact finance funds).

The above case studies demonstrate that a “circular paradigm”, based on circular financing, business, management and institutional models, is feasible. It can enable regeneration creating new values, new attractiveness, new markets and jobs from cultural and ecological resources in terraced landscapes.

Thus, adopting the circular paradigm, terraced landscapes can become models of landscape-led regeneration for rural areas, contributing to build inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable human settlements and to the overall human development.

References

Acosta A (2010) El Buen Vivir en el camino del post-desarrollo. Una lectura desde la Constitución de Montecristi. Policy Paper 9, vol 9

Becchetti L, Bruni L, Zamagni S (eds) (2017) Le città del ben-vivere. Il manifesto programmatico dell’economia civile per le amministrazioni locali (forthcoming)

Bignal EM, McCracken DI (2000) The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems. Environ Rev 8:149–171. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-8-3-149

BLP (2010) The Burren LIFE project. Farming for conservation in the Burren. Final Report. Carron, Ireland

Bonardi L, Varotto M (2016) Paesaggi terrazzati d’Italia. Eredità storiche e nuove prospettive. Franco Angeli

Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

Common M, Stagl S (2005) Ecological economics. An introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Costanza R, Cumberland JH, Daly H, Goodland R, Norgaard RB, Kubiszewski I, Franco C (2014) An introduction to ecological economics, 2nd edn. CRC Press

Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi. org/10.1038/387253a0

DAFF (2010) Terms and conditions of the Burren farming for conservation programme implemented by the minister for agriculture, fisheries and food under the provisions of article 68.1(a)(i) of Council Regulating (EC) 73/2009 April 2010

DAFM (2016) The Burren Programme—Terms and conditions. Tranche 2

Dalberg Global Development Advisors (2014) Innovative financing for development: scalable business models that produce economic, social, and environmental outcomes

Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R et al (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109

Darvill R, Lindo Z (2016) The inclusion of stakeholders and cultural ecosystem services in land management trade-off decisions using an ecosystem services approach. Landsc Ecol 31:533– 545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0260-y

Defra (2007) An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. Forestry 68

Déprés C, Grolleau G, Mzoughi N (2008) Contracting for environmental property rights: the case of Vittel. Economica 75:412–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00620.x

Dewees P, Place F, Scherr SJ, Buss C, Ajayi OC, Buck LE, Elson D et al (2011) Investing in trees and landscape restoration in Africa. What, where, and how. Washington, DC

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) Towards a circular economy: business rationale for an accelerated transition

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) Cities in the circular economy: an initial exploration ESPON, Interact, Interreg Europe, and URBACT (2016) Pathways to a circular economy in cities

and regions. Lille, France

European Commission (2015) Closing the loop – an EU action plan for the circular economy, vol 2. Brussels, 2.12.2015 COM(2015) 614 final

FAO (2011) Payments for ecosystem services and food security

FAO (2015) Food for the Cities Programme—Building sustainable and resilient city region food systems

FAO & Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (2015) Sustainable financing for forest and landscape restoration: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Italy, Rome

Fish R, Church A, Winter M (2016) Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2016.09.002

Forte F, Fusco Girard L (2009) Creativity and new architectural assets: the complex value of beauty. Int J Sustain Dev 12:160–191

Fujita T, Satoshi O, Dong L, Minoru F (2013) Eco-industrial development as a circularization policy framework toward sustainable industrial cities. Lesson and suggestions from the eco town program in Japan. BDC. Boll Del Centr Calza Bini 13:35–52. https://doi.org/10.6092/ 2284-4732/2449

Fusco Girard L (1987) Risorse architettoniche e culturali: valutazioni e strategie di conservazione. Franco Angeli

Fusco Girard L (2016) The city and the territory system: towards the “new humanism” paradigm. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 8:542–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.070

Fusco Girard L, Nijkamp P (1997). Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della cittàe del territorio. Franco Angeli, Milano, Italy

Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Palomo I, Baraibar Molina S, De Groot R, Gómez-Baggethun E (2017) Applicability of economic instruments for protecting ecosystem services from cultural agrarian landscapes in Doñana, SW Spain. Land Use Policy 61:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2016.11.011

Gravagnuolo A (2014) Una proposta metodologica per la valutazione dei landscape services nel paesaggio culturale terrazzato. BDC. Boll Del Cent Calza Bini 14(II):367–385. https://doi.org/ 10.6092/2284-4732/2932

Gravagnuolo A (2015) La valutazione dei paesaggi culturali. Approcci e strumenti per la tutela e valorizzazione dei sistemi terrazzati. University of Naples

De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006

Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis, pp 110–139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Hartel T, Fischer J, Câmpeanu C, Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Fazey I (2014) The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecol Soc, 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06333-190242

Hein L, Van Koppen K, De Groot RS, Van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2005.04.005

Hicks C, Cinner JE, Stoeckl N, Mcclanahan TR (2015) Linking ecosystem services and human-values theory. Conserv Biol 29:1471–1480. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12550

Ingram JC, Wilkie D, Clements T, Balas Mcnab R, Nelson F, Hogan Baur E, Sachedina HT, Dean Peterson D, Andrew C, Foley H (2014) Evidence of payments for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosyst Serv 7:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.003

Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014) Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an introduction. Landsc Ecol 29:181–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014- 9993-2

Lichfield N (1996) Community impact evaluation: principles and practice. Routledge

MA (2005) Ecosystems and human-well-being: wetlands and waters synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manage 59:47–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema. 1999.0335

MEA (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment

Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18:art.44. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05790-180344 Le Moigne R (2014) L’économie circulaire. Comment la mettre en œuvre dans l’entreprise grâce à

la reverse supply chain? Dunod

Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Laterra P, Barrena J, Aguayo M (2014) A mapping approach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: The case of agriculture heritage in Southern Chile. Ecol Ind 40:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.005

OECD (2010) Paying for biodiversity: enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services. Paris

Partnership Circular Economy (2018) Urban Agenda for the EU. Draft action plan Perrot-Maître D (2006) The Vittel payments for ecosystem services: a “perfect” PES case?

Environment. London, UK

Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013

Plieninger T, Van der Horst D, Schleyer C, Bieling C (2014) Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06159-190259

Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Bus Rev 89:62–77

Randall A (1987) Total Economic Value as a basis for policy. Trans Am Fish Soc 116:325–335. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1987)116%3c325:TEVAAB%3e2.0.CO;2

Rizos V, Behrens A, Kafyeke T, Hirschnitz-Garbers M, Ioannou A (2015) The circular economy: barriers and opportunities for SMEs. 412. CEPS Working Document

Scaramellini G, Varotto M (eds) (2008) Paesaggi terrazzati dell’arco alpino. Atlante, Marsilio Smith S, Rowcroft P, Everard M, Couldrick L, Reed M, Rogers H, Quick T, Eves C, White C

(2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a best practice guide. London

TEEB (2010) In Pushpam Kumar (ed) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington

TEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report. Geneva, Switzerland

Tempesta T (2013) Il valore economico dei paesaggi tradizionali. Lavorare il paesaggio. Terrazzamenti e muri a secco tra identità e valori. Albiano (TN)

Thiene M, Bazzani GM, Tempesta T (2006) Le conseguenze della riforma di Politica Agricola Comunitaria sul paesaggio rurale. Econ Dirit Agroaliment 11:79–95

United Nations (2015) Habitat III issue papers 10—Urban-rural linkages. New York

Varotto M (ed) (2009) Nuove Terre Alte. Dalla “montagna che scompare” alla “montagna che vive”. Riv del Club Alpino Italiano, 70–73

Winthrop RH (2014) The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol Econ 108:208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.005

Wynne-Jones S (2013) Connecting payments for ecosystem services and agri-environment regulation: An analysis of the Welsh Glastir Scheme. J Rural Stud 31:77–86. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.004

Chapter 18

The Challenge of Tourism in Terraced

Landscapes

Theano S. Terkenli, Benedetta Castiglioni and Margherita Cisani

Abstract Terraced landscapes contain and produce natural and cultural values which tend to be highly relevant to tourism. The variable interactions developing between the tourism industry and local agricultural systems sustaining terraced cultures may have different consequences on both local development and tourism trends. After a brief theoretical introduction into landscape–tourism interrelationships, this chapter addresses the long array of circumstances and consequences of tourism development in terraced landscapes. With the aid of a series of diagrams which serve as its analytical framework, the chapter lays out and discusses the empirical circumstances and types of challenges stemming from different types of tourism in such landscapes, in terms of polarities: (a) types of landscape uses from the demand side of tourism, (b) impacts of tourism on the agricultural system of these landscapes and (c) impacts of tourism on the socio-economic system of terraced landscapes. Both risks and opportunities incurred by tourism impacts on visited landscapes are especially pressing in the case of terraced landscapes, running the full range from most negative (i.e. destruction) to most positive (i.e. rejuvenation) possible consequences. Even though the diagrams used in this chapter present mass and mild tourism as polarities, they serve as a basis for elaboration on the attractions and expectations of tourists and local communities, in such cases, and on landscape-related tourism consequences on local agricultural and broader local/regional socio-economic systems. They also allow for some conclusive remarks on the environmental, economic and social/cultural sustainability of terraced landscape tourism, in the context of broader local/regional development, while laying the ground for further analysis.

T. S. Terkenli (&)

University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece e-mail: t.terkenli@aegean.gr

B. Castiglioni M. Cisani

Department of Historical and Geographic Sciences and the Ancient World, University of Padova, Padua, Italy

e-mail: etta.castiglioni@unipd.it

M. Cisani

e-mail: margherita.cisani@unipd.it

M. Varotto et al. (eds.), World Terraced Landscapes: History, Environment, Quality of Life, Environmental History 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96815-5_18